Ready for the SOTU jobs pivot?

posted at 12:01 pm on February 12, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Tonight, one of the grandest and emptiest of presidential traditions returns — the State of the Union address to the joint session of Congress. The annual report is required by the Constitution, but not in person; until 1913, Presidents usually sent a written status report. We can thank Woodrow Wilson for the modern tradition, which hits its centennial this year, but let’s face it: as soon as television arrived, this was going to be the norm no matter what.

When President Obama takes to the speaker’s rostrum on the floor of the House of Representatives Tuesday evening, you can expect him to speak for more than an hour. But don’t bet on him saying anything you’ll remember a month later.

Or anything Obama will remember, either. In my column for The Week, I predict that we’ll see all of the usual pomp and rhetorical mechanics, plus a new innovation from Barack Obama — the Annual SOTU Jobs Pivot:

These aspects of the State of the Union speech have become every bit as traditional as the speech itself. But thanks to President Obama, to those traditions we can add another: the annual pivot to jobs. Indeed, The Washington Post reported over the weekend that Obama would once again try to give the impression that his central policy focus is on job creation.

“President Obama will concentrate his State of the Union speech Tuesday on the economy, shifting the emphasis away from the broad social agenda of his second inaugural address to refocus attention on a set of problems that vexed his first term,” wrote the Post‘s Scott Wilson. “Several senior administration officials involved in the speech say he will use his fourth State of the Union address to talk about jobs after the national unemployment rate ticked up last month.”

If that sounds familiar, it should. With every State of the Union address, and with many other scheduled speeches from President Obama, the White House insists that he will return to the issues of jobs and the economy that worry Americans most. Each time, however, the focus promised by Obama ends up diverted back into the “broad social agenda” which most interests Obama.

How seriously can we take this? Well …

Over the last three months since the election, the White House has tried to claim that Obama has refocused on job creation. In late November, Obama proposed a hiring subsidy that had been kicking around for a couple of years without success, and which would have little impact on hiring decisions. However, it quickly became clear that the second Obama term would have other priorities, such as climate change. In fact, Obama highlighted that issue in his inaugural speech, while only mentioning “jobs” three times, none of them in the context of prioritizing job creation. Obama included the word “economy” only once, and only to say that “a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce, schools and colleges to train our workers” — to provide a rationale for expanded government spending.

Let’s just say that the President talks a lot about jobs and the economy in SOTU speeches. He’s not interested in actually doing anything about it, or at least not as interested as he is in his social-policy agenda of climate change, gun control, and the like.

Rarely have State of the Union addresses moved public opinion, and rarely have they led to the kind of broad legislative accomplishments that presidents propose. For all the ritual and attention surrounding these speeches, the State of the Union is, well, sort of lame.

“Most of the speeches can be summarized in three words: boring, boring, boring,” said Allan Lichtman, author of “The 13 Keys to the Presidency.” “They tend to be laundry lists. But sometimes they rise above that.” …

In his 2012 speech, Obama proposed that every state require that students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18, a recommendation that also fell flat.

That wasn’t the only proposal that Obama abandoned as soon as the cameras turned off. Remember the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group from a year ago? Neither does Obama:

A year ago, in his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama promised to sic a task force of prosecutors on Wall Street firms, offering up some election-year red meat by targeting the bad guys who bundled toxic mortgages and sold them as solid investments during the financial crisis.

But as Obama prepares to address the nation again, on Tuesday night, his Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group has more words in its name than wins in court. …

So, all in all, the RMBS Working Group, which has five co-chairs, has been a stereotypical interagency Washington task force.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, one of the co-chairs, got so fed up with Justice that he went directly to the White House last summer to plead for more investigators, according to two sources with knowledge of the matter.

“Did you get a copy of their report? It’s pretty good, isn’t it?” Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) joked sarcastically about the lack of output from the task force. “It’s a political stunt by the administration, which is what [Obama] has done during his State of the Union addresses.”

In other words, the SOTU is just … other words. Jim VanDeHei appeared on Morning Joe to discuss tonight’s speech, and to issue skepticism over whether Obama will make any impact with an expected plea for gun control legislation:

Background checks will move forward regardless of what Obama says in tonight’s SOTU speech; there is too much of a political consensus for tightening the requirements on sales. Obama can only damage that consensus tonight by taking ownership of it during the speech. Otherwise, this will be yet another forgettable laundry list, in a script that one can write from memory regarding applause lines, special guests, and the momentarily overwhelming attention to a speech that will almost immediately become nothing more than a reference material for noting unfulfilled promises — especially on the economy, as has been the case now for four years.

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 2014 to 2018, Americans will pay $1.77 trillion of their hard earned money, just to pay the interest. The Congressional Budget Office then estimated that the interest we all will pay in the five years after 2018 is $3.64 trillion – about the size of our entire federal budget in 2012 and an estimated cost of $30,000 per current household over that five-year period.

Just to remind you again, that money can’t be used for government programs or defense of the nation. It doesn’t even pay off or reduce Washington’s debt. It merely pays interest to our money lenders.

This is not a partisan issue. Both major parties have helped create that debt. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or independent, the debt impacts you. Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal, we are all in the same economic boat and we will sink or float together.

Washington has been unwise, irresponsible and greedy. That much is not even debatable. The real questions are: Do the American people have the wisdom Washington lacks? Will the American people demand that the professional political class in Washington kick its addiction to spending money it does not have and stop endangering the economic security of the very people they purport to represent?

On Tuesday night, President Obama will address many issues in his State of the Union address. I can promise you he will try to sell Americans on increasing taxes again. He will talk about “investing in America,”, which is Washington political window dressing for increased Washington spending and future debt.

President Obama will outline more things Washington can do for you. In fact, he’ll declare that these are things Washington should do for you.

What he won’t address – at least honestly address – is the fine print of his contract. He won’t address the massive suffering that will result if this nation does not get its financial house in order. He won’t say that his plans do not include reduced spending and smaller government in Washington. He won’t lay out the problem of debt or how Washington can begin mitigating and then reducing the true cost of that debt and put this nation back on a path of enduring prosperity.

He may mention this, if only to blame it on the unfairness of the tax system.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Let’s just say that the President talks a lot about jobs and the economy in SOTU speeches. He’s not interested in actually doing anything about it, or at least not as interested as he is in his social-policy agenda of climate change, gun control, and the like.

And I can’t wait for the paeons of praise to be heeped on our Lord and Savior and President for Life Barrack Obama by the pundits who couldn’t repeat one phrase from any previous Obama SOTU address and won’t be able to repeat any from this one by next week.

It’ll be just like any of his other appearances: A big commercial for himself. The MSM, of course, will sing his praises with hosannas to him, show angels streaking across the sky writing his name among the stars, and all the talking heads will say they got tingles up their legs.

I can’t wait to miss this three-ring circus in favor of some low-budget horror flick.

Rarely have State of the Union addresses moved public opinion, and rarely have they led to the kind of broad legislative accomplishments that presidents propose. For all the ritual and attention surrounding these speeches, the State of the Union is, well, sort of lame.

That’s because Congress is lame and the invited guests are only there to sell some point in the laundry list. I’m sure Sarah and Jim Brady or some other anti-American traitor will be in the audience to pan the camera toward when talking about banning guns and gutting the Constitution. There will probably be a group of illegals that benefited from the EO doing an end run on the DREAM act. Maybe even the guy whose wife caught cancer from Mitt Romney to focus on when jobs get mentioned.

If you want jazzier SOTU speeches, start with the guest list. Make it like the Oscars, Grammies, and Tony Awards all rolled into one giant glittering event. Fill the gallery with the likes of Honey Boo Boo, the Kardashian clan, rappers, singers, movie stars, etc.

And stop asking the President to give a speech about the state of the country because how could it not be anything but “super awesome” after four years as a dictatorship? Just let the man talk about whatever he wants, tell a few jokes, maybe get a few dance acts in for intermission and generally just let the nation bask in the glow of its beloved leader. Perhaps it is even time rename it from SOTU to “chillin with the Prezee.”

I don’t care. I DON’T care. I DON’T CARE!! I cannot bring myself to listen to this tool, this LIAR, and this marxist. Just the sound of his voice makes me want to vomit. I’ll take what I read from HA to find out what propaganda and lies the dog-eater spewed to the rest of the worthless idiots in the room and across the country. Besides, It gets BOOOOOORRRRRRING! having to suffer through the endless number of times the party faithful rise to their feet in applause, no matter which one is in power. It’s the most exercise these congressional drones ever get, except for the money-grubbing hand to wallet daily routine they do…

A report to congress is required by law. So is a budget. A speech he can do. But a budget? Budgets are hard.

So we get a speech and no budget…again…Figures.

Lily on February 12, 2013 at 12:44 PM

To be fair, the rat-eared wonder has submitted the “President’s budget” to Congress. These were decidedly unserious documents with unrealistic spending but they were submitted. It is Harry Reid that is the lawbreaker here. He has refused any attempt to get a budget out of the Senate.

No, that would be rude. They should show up and mess with the rat-eared bastard by applauding at random meaningless times. Anybody can applaud on cue but to do so when it makes no sense would really get inside his head.

No, that would be rude. They should show up and mess with the rat-eared bastard by applauding at random meaningless times. Anybody can applaud on cue but to do so when it makes no sense would really get inside his head.

Happy Nomad on February 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM

But that wouldn’t be rude? Of course it would, but it would be hilarious to boot. Do it, GOP, you gutless wonders.

While it is true that unlike the senate, he has submitted budgets. It is also true that, while they weren’t written in actual crayon, they got as many votes as a crayon budget would have. It is also true that this year’s presidential budget will be late, like most of his others have been. He said he would send one down, like, whenever. Probably sometime after Jack Lew learns to write like a 5th grader.

The only thing that could make it better is to have Pelosi and Shultz-Wasserman dressed in Catholic school girl uniforms with pom-poms in the background cheering, “you go Prizzi”. It may be a reruns night.

Prediction: If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will NOT be followed by the word “budget”.

If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will be in combination with the word “approach”, or “way”, and what he really means is that he wants more tax hikes and no real cuts to spending. When he talks about “cuts”, he will talk about them over a 10 year time period (even though he is forbidden by the Constitution from serving past January 20, 2017, less than four years from now), and he will be talking about cuts to baseline increases (which means they aren’t real cuts at all).

Anyone want to bet that Ted Nugent faces a tougher security check then the 3 illegals who will be in attendance?

What’s the over/under on Nugent yelling “You Lie!”? Probably the only way possible that a camera catches him in attendance, as they will be exclusively focused on shooting victims and Newtown residents.

Prediction: If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will NOT be followed by the word “budget”.

If Obama uses the word “balanced”, it will be in combination with the word “approach”, or “way”, and what he really means is that he wants more tax hikes and no real cuts to spending. When he talks about “cuts”, he will talk about them over a 10 year time period (even though he is forbidden by the Constitution from serving past January 20, 2017, less than four years from now), and he will be talking about cuts to baseline increases (which means they aren’t real cuts at all).

That wasn’t very hard to predict, and here is Obama’s one and only use of the word “balanced” in his State of the Union 2013 speech…

broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with spending cuts and revenue, and with everybody doing their fair share. And that’s the approach I offer tonight.

He has no interest in a balanced budget. His interest is in Socialist taxation policies to force some pay more (what he considers their “fair share”) while he redistributes their wealth to others (“spread the wealth around”).

Obama, as both Senator and pResident, has been a part of the Democrat majorities that are now responsible for the SIX BIGGEST DEFICITS IN U.S. HISTORY (FY 2008 – 2013, and Democrats have held 2+ of the House, Senate, and Presidency all six of those years).